Template:Did you know nominations/Britannia Unchained

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Allen3 ^talk 20:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Britannia Unchained

(

)

... that the 2012 political book Britannia Unchained attracted criticism after accusing British employees of being "among the worst idlers in the world"?

Reviewed: Astor Bridge

Created/expanded by Paul MacDermott (talk). Self nom at 14:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Alt 1: "... that the 2012 political book Britannia Unchained is authored by five British Conservative MPs who were elected at the 2010 general election?"
Alt 2: "... that the 2012 political book Britannia Unchained urges the United Kingdom to be more like the tiger economies of the Far East?"

File:Pictogram voting keep.svg|16px Somehow overbloated, but this article is well-referenced. If sales of the book is included, I might give this a definite green tick. Anyway, this is about a mere book, and reactions toward the book may prove impact. More reaction would be needed, but this book is very recent. I'll give this a pass. As for the hooks themselves, I'll leave the promoter to decide. --George Ho (talk) 22:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a very puzzling review. The only difference between the green and gray ticks is that the gray tick means that some references were accepted in good faith because they could not be confirmed on line, whereas green means they could be seen. Does this article meet the DYK criteria—newness, length, hook facts cited, NPOV, paraphrasing, etc.—or not? BlueMoonset (talk) 03:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

This article meets minimum length requirements. However, I could not find such countries (shown in paragraph 2) in one of sources, but I presume that it comes from the book primarily. Nevertheless, I did not mention it in the review. The rest of info is properly sourced. ~~I said "overbloated" and gave this article a gray tick because it was created one week after book release.~~ --George Ho (talk) 03:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Wait, I change my mind. The information may be outdated because I realize that the article was created weeks before the release. Therefore, it needs updates and book reviews since the book is already released about a week ago. Reactions before public release... I'm not sure if I call them sufficient or valuable. Nevertheless, even if length requirement has passed, major editing is needed. --George Ho (talk) 03:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, regarding paragraph 2, used as ALT 2, as said, it could be dubious. --George Ho (talk) 03:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Here are reviews or sources that can either be added or replace dubious information: New Statesman (another), Conservative Home, Public Service, Guardian. --George Ho (talk) 03:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Still overbloated to me (and needs cleanup or skimming later if goaling as Good Article), especially the last paragraph (a review on or after release); in fact, I still wonder if it is widely notable than it is now because this book is mainly intended for British people. Anyway, minimum requirements passed, article is updated, sources corrected somehow, etc. The country paragraph, even when I don't see names of countries in either source, is well-explained, but ALT 2 must not be used for said reasons. Other hooks pass, so I'll leave them to promoter. --George Ho (talk) 01:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm mindful that this probably needs a copyedit, and the attention of a few people who are more familiar with economics. Hopefully being at DYK will do that. Will also submit it for peer review once my current peer review has closed. Paul MacDermott (talk) 09:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)